Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.37807 of 2025 Bijoy Chandra Jena ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Satyajit Mohapatra (2) -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Collector And Dist.magistrate, Rayagada 3) D.e.o., Rayagada Represented by Adv. – Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 13.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated in the petition, admit the same, issue notice to the Opposite Parties, call for the records and calling upon them to file show cause as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, this application may kindly be allowed and the Opp. Party No. 3 i.e. District Page 2 of 4. Education Officer, Rayagada may kindly be directed to consider the representation dtd. 14.7.2025 and release the provisional pension of the petitioner for secure ends of justice.. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner while working as Head Clerk in the Office of the District Education Officer, Rayagada was entangled in a vigilance case in the eyar 2012 i.e. Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.34 of 2014 registered under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, he was transferred to the office of the DEO, Gunupur. While working the DEO, Gunupur, the Petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.03.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the meantime the petitioner faced trial in the vigilance case and he was convicted. After his conviction, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court bearing CRLA No.733 of 2018 and the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was admitted on 30.11.2018. 6. He further contended that basing upon his conviction in the vigilance case the Authority has stopped the provisional pension which has been paid to the Petitioner w.e.f. 10.08.2022. after his provisional pension was stopped, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Authority on 14.07.2025 at Annexure-4. After considering the representation of the Petitioner the DEO, Rayagada has sought for certain clarification Page 3 of 4. from the Director Secondary Education, Odisha vide his letter dated 12.08.2025 at Annexure-5. Since no clarification has been issued by the Office of the Director. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in providing clarification to the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 for redressal of his grievance and it is evident from the writ application that such representation of the Petitioner dated 14.07.2025 is still pending. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended if the representation of the Petitioner has not being finalised and is pending before the Opposite Party No.3, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite parties to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law, within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party Page 4 of 4. No.3 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi